click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130117
20130125
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
, the folks that were elected with us, the senators that have arrived in the last five or ten years. i think we have the ability to respond in a big, bold way to the crises that face us. and i know senator merkley, you came here a young man with senator hatfield i believe and you saw a different senate. maybe you could talk about that and we don't want to stay, i know we're going to a caucus and we have our generous chair here, so we don't want to keep her up there too long, our presiding officer. anyway, senator merkley, i yield. mr. merkley: i think my colleague from new mexico is absolutely right in pointing out there were periods when the senate really worked to address the big issues facing america. and it wawnltd that there weren't -- wasn't that there weren't profound differences. there were fierce differences, emotional differences, deep differences but folks came to this floor, they conversed, they laid out their arguments and ultimately they made decisions about which way to go. and they didn't bring the attitude let's just paralyze this chamber from doing doing nothing. had they d
are up for re-election in north carolina or out west or down south or wherever they're from, i don't think he can lift it. and can that's what i'm talking about in terms of overreach. if this was something where you said close the loophole on gun shows, catch the 40% of people who are going into the shows and escaping, buying guns if they're mentally disturbed and we should catch that and reasonable restrictions. the problem in the heller case and what d.c. was doing is they said you couldn't have a gun unless you registered it, but then today wouldn't let you register it. i mean, that's an effective you can't do it. and that does, in fact, go too far. so if it's a common sense -- and, you know, quite frankly, i don't know why ten. i don't know why somebody needs ten bullets, let alone thirty. so ten doesn't seem like some magic number to me. and, again, to the gun owners, that sounds like something somebody made up, ten. so i think that the president'stive orders -- executive orders can be accepted by the republican party, and if they did the incremental approach of background che
and the nation's debt. joining me now to debate those issues, chuck schumer of new york and newly elected republican senator ted cruz of texas. welcome back as senator cruz to "meet the press." back to both of you. i want to start on the gun debate. because as i say, even before the second term is officially underway thissy is bait is well underway. here are the highlights of what the president wants to accomplish. universal background checks. he'd like to pursue a ban on high capacity magazines. an assault weapons ban that lapsed in 2004. and he'd like stricter laws on gun trafficking. but senator schumer, just as i challenged wayne lapierre of the nra very hard when this came up, i challenge you as well with a question of, is this really going to make a difference? and rich lawry wrote something that caught my attention in "the national review." no one can write a law against mothers owning guns that one day might be turned against them by deranged sons who then commit horrific acts of murder-suicide. shooting rampages are hard to prevent because they are so often committed by young men
election, for example, i think the most racially divisive comment of the entire election was joe biden's comment where he said if the republicans win, they are, quote, going to put y'all back in chains. that made my heart weep to see a sitting vice president playing to racial fears and playing on those issues. i think that's unfortunate. i don't think it has any place in politics. >> chuck hagel, you were very tepid on "meet the press" a couple of weeks ago. >> i was. >> now you've met with him, you're more comfortable, you'll support him? >> i am. >> what changed? >> i said on your show that i had real concerns. i spent 90 minutes with him. i asked him very specific questions on the things that troubled me. his answers were forth right. and they were answers that alayed my concerns. should we keep every option on the table to prevent a nuclear iran? yes. i went further. i said, do you think we can tolerate a nuclear iran? he said no. and i said to him, well, then, if we had to use military as the only choice, would you? he said yes. second, i asked him hezbollah and hamas, should they
and a number of senators as well. and to ask him directly about the elections and ask him about my second question. but i wanted to get your sense of where you see those lexes going. what efforts you can undertake to make sure that they are free and fair because they've been, i think, central to the next chapter in this transition. i just wanted to comment on that. the second question as it relates to afghanistan is one that senator boxer raised and her work on this has been exemplary, on women and girls and in particular, i have a -- an amendment that we got through the national defense authorization act which would require both state and defense to file a report on the efforts to promote the security of afghan women and girls just by way of itemization monitoring and responding to changes in women's security that will be part of the report. secondly, improving gender sensitivity and responsiveness among the afghan security forces and increasing the recruitment and retention of women in the afghan security forces. so both with regard to the election and women and girls. >> senator with r
people elected it to do. mr. president, may i ask unanimous consent that the period of morning business be now extended until 6:30 p.m. today and all provisions of the previous order remain in effect. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. chambliss: i rise to speak today about our tax code as well as our economic future. there's a problem with our tax code, one that hits home with nearly all americans, and that is its complexity. in the fast past few years i have met with hundreds and hundreds of constituents who are worried about this issue, individuals, small businesses, farms and large corporations alike struggle with meeting their obligations to the i.r.s. because of the complexity of our current tax code. earlier this month the i.r.s. taxpayer advocate revealed some startling figures in the agency's annual record report to congress. it estimates that individuals and businesses spend 6.1 billion hours each year complying with the i.r.s. tax filing requirements. the c
purposes. >> i just want to say the whole business about people use today is mitt romney lost the election with the whole horse and bayonet. i wish would stay away from that because the president said were not using bayonets anymore. so it's a different weaponry, but the other thing missing here i think when i talk about overreach, the e-mail you read in general kristol's observation is people say, why do you need an assault weapon? nobody needs an assault weapon, but that's not the issue. by somebody in this country need to have a trial by jury? by somebody who's robbed a bank need to have the fourth amendment having a search warrant before you issue? nobody needs those things. the issue as they were enshrined in the constitution. so you have to make sure you work with what the supreme court has said. the right to bear arms is an individual right. the first of all affect the value can you can have reasonable restrictions, so the path forward for responsible legislators is to find out what the reasonable restrictions are that save lives. i think the taking of when human life is a horrible
re-elected because people would have seen it as statesmanship and leadership. now, we have had an unfortunate set of experiences here as recently as the end of last year, new year's eve, because we approached a manufactured crisis, a deadline known as the fiscal cliff, but i don't think anybody in america certainly anybody in this body really wants another 2:00 a.m. senate vote. not because it's inconvenient but because it's not a good thing in the people's house, the senate house of representatives to be voting in the dark of night when people aren't able to watch. nobody wants another cliffhanger that weakens public trust in our government or in our willingness to meet our responsibilities, and most of all no one wants another credit downgrade. now, this is important. the president talks about the importance of lifting the debt ceiling because he said we don't want to suffer another downgrade in our credit standing, but indeed one of the reasons why we have already suffered a negative response to our credit rating is because we haven't dealt with the real problems that confro
interest, make it an issue with elected officials. i have some policy recommendations at the end that i hope people will again take seriously. >> he'd been talking about this dream he had. tap about it for years that the american dream and then it becomes history and hit him in detroit just a few months before entire cabal, i have a dream that america will someday realize the sprint to pose in the declaration of independence. so i think he was just inspired by the moment. this >> now, update on preparations for president to bomb his on monday. representatives of the committees, u.s. capitol police and military spoke with reporters at the national press club for a little less than an hour. >> thank you very much. thank you for the press club for posting today. this is going to be a little bit of a dance as they run through this chronologically. as you can imagine, there's different players involved in the events taking place over the next three days. my name is trained for. that's brent colburn. i'm the communications director for the presidential and not through committee and we are inv
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)